Of course the impulses received in such a process are too numerous and varied to render here. I will try to describe what firstly the process and secondly the result meant and mean to me.
A doublework piece must have its roots in a process of building trust. For us the work started with creating an atmosphere of beautiful openness and playfulness.
The first classes of improvisation were more about getting to know and trust each other than about coming up with loads of material. Somehow, learning how to do silly things and laugh together felt as important as being sure that the other person could physically support my weight.
Yet, during this time small sequences chrystallised, and I learnt that my partner was far better at visualising and mentally browsing through our material than I was. I had to learn how to stop her when getting lost while discussing the order and structure of the piece.
Speed just tended to happen during our improvising - some have told me improvising with me can be scary because of fast movements, and the very first time I improvised with Elisabetta I could understand them. Speed and sudden movements was certainly an issue we had to look at.
The most important aspects of the piece itself was the questions it raised.
The content of a piece is in the audience's perception, what they carry away of the total number of impressions. Movement, costume, lighting and sound score all contribute.
To me, the piece raised questions of authorship, how we make choices that affect content.
The movement-making itself was the easiest part - the playfulness, ease and joy of the process surprised both of us. But I have a feeling the piece "hid its roots" with the sound score, seemed to try to hide away the playfulness and communication with a layer of lack of interchange.
The score's basic idea was another note on the communication theme. The result was more about not getting through, or communicating only with machines. There was hardly a notion of human interaction.
If it gave the piece a new content, fine. The content of a piece need not show the inspiration of the process. If the total expression was strong and seemed united into "a piece", fine. But to me it seems that the content was a struggle between elements or different ideas that never met.
The most important result of the process was that an aquintance was turned into a friend.
For Elisabetta:
Grazie per essere una che cavora sodo, una collaboratri ce da cui trarre inspirazione ed un'amica.